MR. R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) of Vridhachalam at Cuddalore District, in M.C.O.P. No. 372 of 2005 on 6.11.2009, the insurance company has filed the appeal in C.M.A. No. 1992 of 2010.

2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded by the said Tribunal, the wife and minor daughter of the deceased Asokan, have filed the appeal in C.M.A. No. 3145 of 2013.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, these two appeals are disposed of by way of a common judgment.

4. The brief facts are, that on 16.9.2005 at about 7.45 p.m., when the deceased Asokan was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 20AY 4128 along with one Venkatesan at Athipattu Pudunagar Bridge, an Ashok Leyland trailor bearing Registration No. TN-28K-8079 proceeding from the opposite direction, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Asokan and thus, caused the accident. In that accident, the said Asokan had lost his life. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trailor, the mother of the deceased has filed a claim petition as against the owner of the vehicle, insurance company and also impleading the wife and minor daughter of the deceased as respondents 3 and 4 and claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-.

5. Resisting the claim petition, the insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased Asokan. It was also stated that the driver of the trailor was not responsible for the accident and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. To substantiate the claim, the mother of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1. One V. Jayaram, who was working as Superintendent of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was examined as P.W.2 and one Lakshmanan, Contract Labour was examined as P.W.3 and one Rajendran was examined as P.W.4. On the side of the claimant, Exhibits P-1 to P.6 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

7. The Tribunal after going through the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trailor. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,18,360/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The break up details of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, are as follows:

Questioning the said quantum of compensation, the insurance company has filed the appeal in C.M.A. No. 1992 of 2010. Seeking enhancement of the same, the wife and minor daughter of the deceased have filed the appeal in C.M.A. No. 3145 of 2013.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has submitted the following contentions:

(i) After the death of the said Asokan, his wife got a job on compassionate grounds and she is receiving wages from the said job. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have deducted the monthly wages that she is receiving from the job on compassionate grounds.

(ii) The wife of the deceased is also receiving the pension amount of Rs. 6,280/- per month on the death of the her husband, the deceased Asokan and the said amount is also liable to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased.

(iii) The Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards income tax. Hence, necessary deduction has to be made from the compensation amount.

9. In support of the said contention, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company relied on the decision in Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Smt. Kanta Aggarwal and Others 2008 (2) TN MAC 170 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 3118 : LNIND 2008 SC 1327 : (2008) 6 MLJ 604. By relying on the said decision, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that necessary deduction has to be made from the compensation amount by taking into conside